Appeal No. 96-4012
Application No. 08/197,908
the Examiner is correct in asserting that the splitting of a
speech signal into a plurality of subbands and the dynamic
distribution of coding bits over the subbands as described at
col. 4, line 39 to col. 5, line 20 of Galand provides an
explicit teaching of this feature.
As to Appellant’s arguments concerning the claim language
relating to the mitigation of audio degradation, we take note
of the fact that such language appears only in the preamble of
claim 9. A preamble is generally not accorded any patentable
weight where it merely recites the purpose of a process or the
intended use of a structure, and where the body of the claim
does not depend on the preamble for completeness but, instead,
the process steps or structural limitations are able to stand
alone. In re Hirao, 535 F. 2d 67, 190 USPQ 15 (CCPA 1976).
For at least the above reasons, the Examiner’s 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b) rejection of claim 9 as anticipated by Galand is
sustained. As discussed previously, since Appellant has
grouped claims 9-13 and 22-26 together but has provided no
separate arguments with regard to any of the claims in the
group, the remaining claims in this group fall along with
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007